Stephen Harper: A one mandate PM?

[jbg]

That may change as Albertans become more and more convinced that it is their brilliance that put the oil in the ground and that the rest of us lazy Canadians are trying to live off their hard work and sharp brains. Ok, that's a gross overstatement but in a few years time it may end up being pretty close to the truth.

The original legislation creating Confederation, the British North America Act of 1867, as requested by Ontario (Upper Canada), Quebec (Lower Canada), and New Brunswick gave ownership of and jurisdiction over natural resources to the provioces. Do the rules change when the original three provinces don't like the result?

[jbg]

The unemployment may have something to do with oil but the rest does not.

I don't think Albertans are genetically different, so it must be the economic realities of living here. Maybe the other governments of Canada need to take a page out of our book and be alot more pro-business... they might even gain jobs!!!

Correct. Remember, NL and SK have oil as well. As a result of the anti-business climate it just doesn't find its way out of the ground as readily.

[geoffrey]

Newfoundland has lower variable cost oil and a much bigger, more interested market to sell it... all transportable by low infrastructure cheap tanker.

Yet they have no development. Why? Because their government has failed them. Their welfarist society continues to oppress their economic growth and freedom.

[August1991]

What a thread. Reading through it, I thought Argus had the best points, made at the beginning:

You're reading a lot into very little. Harper's popularity isn't falling except in Quebec, because Quebecers are, by and large, ignorant of world realities - or even national realities, and much given to shallow, mindless naval gazing.

The two items hurting him most in Quebec are Afghanistan and Kyoto, neither of which anyone but an imbecile should really lay at his door. He didn't get us into Afghanistan, and he didn't sit by for 13 years while our emissions rose by nearly 30%. Now you can say that he has supported the troops and mission in Afghanistan, and that his government has been less than impressive over greenhouse gas emissions. However, to suggest people will, because of this, run out and vote Liberal is to suggest those people are complete morons.

The phrase you quoted was on the topic of the gun registry, where in Quebec, for some bizarre reason, people seem to believe that the gun registry protects them from events like Dawson College - even though it clearly didn't. Much press has been given some idiotic Dawson student who got himself shot, and his "campaign" to save the gun registry. He seems to not know the difference between the gun registry and gun control, but then most Quebecers seem similarly ignorant. The Canadian media is dishonest and unprofessional, but they're paragons of journalistic virtue compared to the Quebec media. Quebec papers make no secret that their headlines and stories are slanted and dishonest, depending on the political and ideological views of the people who write them. There is little truth to be had there.

So the three things doing him damage, the billion dollar gun registry which doesn't work, Afghanistan, and Kyoto, are not his fault, and only an idiot would blame him for what he's doing. So what you're saying is that Quebecers are idiots. Which I won't argue with.

As for the idea Harper is the last great white hope, that's silly. His biggest problem in English Canada is not that he's a social conservative from the west, it's that he possesses nothing even approaching charisma.

Argus, I may be exaggerating, and Harper has certainly been counted out before. The guy is like a prairie gopher - he keeps popping up.

Harper's popularity isn't falling, but it isn't rising. To get a majority, he'll need around 40% but he's stuck at 32%. (In Harper's favour, I'm beginning to think that's a solid 32% - thick or thin.)

I agree Argus that Harper has been hit on the environment, Afghanistan and the gun registry.

In Quebec, Harper was an unknown quantity. (Some voters went with his provincial respect in the last election.) Now though, Harper appears to be Milosevic, Putin or Bush in Quebec. That is, no one can figure the guy. He's a lunatic. (It's possible that the Tories will keep a few seats in Quebec City but that has nothing to do with Harper. IMV, there'll be no Tory breakthrough in Quebec.)

In Ontario, the media hit Harper. Does this matter? I don't know.

Last great white hope? I'm exaggerating maybe. But if 21st century Canada cannot have a protestant anglophone prime minister from Alberta who speaks for social conservatives, then what does that say about Canada?

Wilfred Laurier was Canada's first Catholic, French-speaking PM. There were no other francophones in Laurier's cabinet.

Canada is a country based on compromise.

[geoffrey]

The guy is like a prairie gopher - he keeps popping up.

Prairie dog August, prairie dog.

In Quebec, Harper was an unknown quantity. (Some voters went with his provincial respect in the last election.) Now though, Harper appears to be Milosevic, Putin or Bush in Quebec. That is, no one can figure the guy. He's a lunatic. (It's possible that the Tories will keep a few seats in Quebec City but that has nothing to do with Harper. IMV, there'll be no Tory breakthrough in Quebec.)

Agreed, he has about as much to offer to Montreal'ers as Dion does to Calgarians.

In Ontario, the media hit Harper. Does this matter? I don't know.

How did the public react to the media's destruction of Joe? I think they jumped on board...

Last great white hope? I'm exaggerating maybe. But if 21st century Canada cannot have a protestant anglophone prime minister from Alberta who speaks for social conservatives, then what does that say about Canada?

Wilfred Laurier was Canada's first Catholic, French-speaking PM. There were no other francophones in Laurier's cabinet.

Canada is a country based on compromise.

For now. Turning that around for a second, if Canada can't have a French or even Ontario based PM that stands for very 'progressive' social policy, Canada is in trouble. I'm refering to the fact that the Liberals weren't elected in Alberta. Neither the CPC or the LPC are a national party IMO. Both can't appeal to large areas of the population, the big tents aren't big enough and the people are too opposed to be in them at the same time.

[apollo19]

Harper's popularity isn't falling, but it isn't rising. To get a majority, he'll need around 40% but he's stuck at 32%. (In Harper's favour, I'm beginning to think that's a solid 32% - thick or thin.)

I agree Argus that Harper has been hit on the environment, Afghanistan and the gun registry.

In Quebec, Harper was an unknown quantity. (Some voters went with his provincial respect in the last election.) Now though, Harper appears to be Milosevic, Putin or Bush in Quebec. That is, no one can figure the guy. He's a lunatic. (It's possible that the Tories will keep a few seats in Quebec City but that has nothing to do with Harper. IMV, there'll be no Tory breakthrough in Quebec.)

In Ontario, the media hit Harper. Does this matter? I don't know.

Last great white hope? I'm exaggerating maybe. But if 21st century Canada cannot have a protestant anglophone prime minister from Alberta who speaks for social conservatives, then what does that say about Canada?

Wilfred Laurier was Canada's first Catholic, French-speaking PM. There were no other francophones in Laurier's cabinet.

Canada is a country based on compromise.

I think the problem Harper is having is that he is unable to reclaim all of the PC vote. My guess is that a lot of that 32% is the Alliance vote, and a lot of that is due to social conservative positions (or proposed ones). I don't really think it is Harper's fault that he is hit with Afghanistan and the environment, but a lot of that is of his own doing because of his relationship with the media. For the Afghanistan problem, I think the biggest issue is O'Connor and Harper -- they are always talking about it to the media. That makes it seem as if they are the reasons behind Afghanistan.. notice how Martin and Graham never really talked about it, they just let the military do their job.

What Harper has to do is make inroads into the GTA and Vancouver. He is probably maxed out in Quebec for the current time, but he can win seats in urban areas -- as long as he changes the way he does things. I think a good example of a riding he could win if he changed some things is Vancouver Centre -- fiscally conservative but socially liberal. But, it seems that Harper is arrogant and is unwilling to change.. that is what drives me away from voting for him.

I don't see what him being a protestant from Alberta has to do with anything other than semantics, but I think there are some very credible people out there who could lead Canada -- and from outside Ontario/Quebec. People like Bernard Lord and Gordon Campbell come to mind here. We need to get away from the whole "Alberta is so good and rich", "Quebec is a nation", and "Ontario is full of liberal immigrants" arguments which keep Canada busy with useless things.

[normanchateau]

I don't see what him being a protestant from Alberta has to do with anything other than semantics, but I think there are some very credible people out there who could lead Canada -- and from outside Ontario/Quebec. People like Bernard Lord and Gordon Campbell come to mind here.

I don't know about Lord but Campbell is certainly liberal socially. He favours same-sex marriage, no penalties for marijuana possession, safe injection sites for heroin, etc. He's a fiscal conservative but if he were also a so-con like Harper, he'd not be Premier of BC. Vancouver is socially far more liberal than the rest of BC so he's an albatross to the Conservatives in Vancouver. Yet Vancouver had plenty of PC MPs in the past when they had social moderates as leaders.

[August1991]

I don't see what him being a protestant from Alberta has to do with anything other than semantics, but I think there are some very credible people out there who could lead Canada -- and from outside Ontario/Quebec. People like Bernard Lord and Gordon Campbell come to mind here. We need to get away from the whole "Alberta is so good and rich", "Quebec is a nation", and "Ontario is full of liberal immigrants" arguments which keep Canada busy with useless things.

Even in this modern irreligious age, it matters in the same sense that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Harper's a WASP even if he doesn't go to church.

My point in the OP was that if Harper can't be a successful PM, then I'm inclined to believe that Canada is so intolerant that it is ungovernable. (Of course, if Harper is just incompetent, then Canadians have every reason to get rid of the fool.)

[normanchateau]

I don't see what him being a protestant from Alberta has to do with anything other than semantics, but I think there are some very credible people out there who could lead Canada -- and from outside Ontario/Quebec. People like Bernard Lord and Gordon Campbell come to mind here. We need to get away from the whole "Alberta is so good and rich", "Quebec is a nation", and "Ontario is full of liberal immigrants" arguments which keep Canada busy with useless things.

Even in this modern irreligious age, it matters in the same sense that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Harper's a WASP even if he doesn't go to church.

My point in the OP was that if Harper can't be a successful PM, then I'm inclined to believe that Canada is so intolerant that it is ungovernable.

Canada intolerant??

Many Canadians view Harper's problem as being an intolerant so-con and most Canadians don't want a an intolerant so-con as Prime Minister.

[blueblood]

I don't see what him being a protestant from Alberta has to do with anything other than semantics, but I think there are some very credible people out there who could lead Canada -- and from outside Ontario/Quebec. People like Bernard Lord and Gordon Campbell come to mind here. We need to get away from the whole "Alberta is so good and rich", "Quebec is a nation", and "Ontario is full of liberal immigrants" arguments which keep Canada busy with useless things.

Even in this modern irreligious age, it matters in the same sense that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Harper's a WASP even if he doesn't go to church.

My point in the OP was that if Harper can't be a successful PM, then I'm inclined to believe that Canada is so intolerant that it is ungovernable.

Canada intolerant??

Many Canadians view Harper's problem as being an intolerant so-con and most Canadians don't want a an intolerant so-con as Prime Minister.

Just like many Canadians don't want an intolerant so-lib for prime minister

[normanchateau]

I don't see what him being a protestant from Alberta has to do with anything other than semantics, but I think there are some very credible people out there who could lead Canada -- and from outside Ontario/Quebec. People like Bernard Lord and Gordon Campbell come to mind here. We need to get away from the whole "Alberta is so good and rich", "Quebec is a nation", and "Ontario is full of liberal immigrants" arguments which keep Canada busy with useless things.

Even in this modern irreligious age, it matters in the same sense that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Harper's a WASP even if he doesn't go to church.

My point in the OP was that if Harper can't be a successful PM, then I'm inclined to believe that Canada is so intolerant that it is ungovernable.

Canada intolerant??

Many Canadians view Harper's problem as being an intolerant so-con and most Canadians don't want a an intolerant so-con as Prime Minister.

Just like many Canadians don't want an intolerant so-lib for prime minister

It depends on the issue. For example, on marijuana decriminalization, most Canadsians reject Harper's intolerant so-con position.

[geoffrey]

It depends on the issue. For example, on marijuana decriminalization, most Canadsians reject Harper's intolerant so-con position.

Citation for that one?

[normanchateau]

It depends on the issue. For example, on marijuana decriminalization, most Canadsians reject Harper's intolerant so-con position.

Citation for that one?

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/Febr...inalization.pdf

http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W03-T113.pdf

[geoffrey]

The question is misleading as it adds a qualifier, "As the government is going to pass..." blah blah.

If you asked a question straight up, "Do you support removing all fines for marijuana possession?" you'd get a different result. Similar to the premise of the clarity act, more people will support something when limitations and qualifers are added to the question then the straight up "Do you support this, yes or no."

[normanchateau]

The question is misleading as it adds a qualifier, "As the government is going to pass..." blah blah.

If you asked a question straight up, "Do you support removing all fines for marijuana possession?" you'd get a different result. Similar to the premise of the clarity act, more people will support something when limitations and qualifers are added to the question then the straight up "Do you support this, yes or no."

No such qualifier was used in the following poll which found only 8% of Canadians favouring criminal charges fpr possession. Harper is among those who favour criminal charges.

http://www.sesresearch.com/news/press_rele...2025%202004.pdf

In this poll 53% of Canadians favoured outright legalization which is an even greater step away from Harper's extreme so-con position than the Liberal decriminalization bill.